Someone on the Musicals Board of the IMDB claims that Joel Schumaker mentioned in an interview that he would be working on a film version of BFO. The poster claims the interview was in a magaizine title Movies Rock. Has anyone else heard this? I've asked the poster for a link.

Personally, I think the guy is talking out of his hat because he claims that Hugh is "hesitant" about taking on the role and claims that Schumacher told him he was considering Matthew Broderick for Peter if Hugh didn't take on the project --

Broderick -- yeah right. Nothing against him, but he would not be my first choice to fill Hugh's shoes as Peter.

I had just logged out when I saw this and thought...OH SH*T!!!

Look. If Joel Schumacher is going to direct a film version of TBFO, then Matthew Broderick can have it. I wouldn't want Hugh Jackman going anywhere near this thing with a 10,000 foot pole. God. I hope this is not true. I've had such high hopes and so many ideas about adapting this for the screen. And I've always felt that in the hands of a great filmmaker, that Hugh could win an Oscar for the screen version of Peter's life. And I don't really buy that "hesitancy" thing either. Why would he be hesitant to bring Peter's life to the big screen?

But as I've said before...
If they're not going to do it right, then I want Hugh to have NOTHING to do with it. Walk away honey. My God. Schumacker? Look what he did with Phantom. I don't understand how directors who keep mucking things up, keep on working. Not only working, but having pretigious projects handed to them.

Well. As the great William Goldman has said...they don't know anything in Hollywood.

Very depressing news.

Barb

And another thing...

Broderick is all wrong for this role. He's a very small man and while Peter would have never played for the Knicks, he wasn't a shrimp. Matthew is. And...the age thing. I've stewed over Hugh maybe letting too much time go by and then waking up one day and realizing he was too old to play it. Well hell. Broderick will be 46 in a couple of months. He's six and a half years older than Hugh.

No. The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Which means...it's probably true.

Please...just kill me now.

Barb

I doubt the poster is telling the truth. He also posted over there, on the Hairspray and Nathan Lane boards, that Mr. Lane is going to play Edna Turnblad,claiming as his source of information Playbill.com. Needless to say I checked that, and all I found was an article that mentioned Lane recording "Timeless to Me" for the film's soundtrack. Also, considering that Lane is currently in November, it doesn't seem likely that he's going into Hairspray anytime soon.

Kec,

Thanks for sharing the buzz with us.

But it is unlikely that producer Robert Fox and the estates of Ben Gannon, Stephen McLean, and Nick Enright and most especially the estate of Peter Allen would have handed the film rights to someone who is hiring the team of Joel Schumacher and Matthew Broderick to bring TBFO to the silver screen

On the positive side, the rumour may just prod Hugh to start thinking that this material could really translate into a very good movie musical and that he should start seriously thinking of doing it soon

Another rumour floated on BWW-West End by an Aussie poster is that there is some buzz that TBFO will be reprised in Australia by the original star ( presumably Todd McKenney) in late 2008. Hmmm...if true, maybe he wants to celebrate the 10th year since it opened in Australia

Jo

quote:

Joel Schumaker mentioned in an interview that he would be working on a film version of BFO

OMG! Say it ain't so! What a dreadful thought! He absolutely ruined POTO. I'd rather no TBFO movie at all than seeing Show-Mucker's version... and Matthew Broderick??? Ugh! I mean, I actually like him, but NOT in the roll of Peter Allen. He just hasn't got "it" -- that charisma that fills RCMH to the very last row -- there's no way he could pull that off. Sorry.

I like the thought that Todd McKenney might reprise TBFO Down Under. I'd like to see his version... and I'd love an excuse for another trip to OZ. If you hear anything more on that, please let us know. Thanks Jo.

IF TBFO was made into a film - in general but esp by this director - it would be all wrong. The stage version is not what is needed on the big screen. We have rehashed this I think on OPI - which I was about to post on anyway.

So - once again - someone in Hollywood - LISTEN - to tell about the drama and story of the greatest stage performer of the last two generations and the one that somehow missed out on stardom - it can not be a book musical. It is a dramatic biography with lots of music because it is about a singer songwriter who was AMAZING on stage - full of life and charisma.

OK -
I am going back to OPI now.

buckaroo - instigator

i LOVE mATHEW bRODERICK-actually adore him-but oh my goodness he could never do this part-Ferris Bueller in OZ??

I can't see him as Peter A. First of all he lived to be 48 and the show ends with his Aussie concert in 1992 he was 47 and turned 48 the following month. Harry Connick, Jr. would do better because he was mentored in part by Peter. I know he was on THE PAJAMA GAME on Broadway...

Yes, Harry Connick, Jr. He's secure enough to pull this off. He had quite the stage presence in PAJAMA GAME. Somehow, I can't see Mr. Sarah Jessica even attempting this.

I have a question, and I know many of you can answer - and I'd like to hear all of your answers.

Having seen POTO on stage and film, I honestly don't know why the movie was/is trashed. I thought it was beautiful, I thought everyone did a great job (the exception being Patrick Wilson - who i generally like, but thought he was emotionless.)

I was prepared to dislike the film, as i was so disappointed that hugh was not the phantom. I was prepared to dis Butler - b/c I don't care for him (a rock songer, at that)- but had to admit he carried it off.

So please tell me why you thought it was so awful. I'm always interested in diverse opinions.
Thanks
Darla

I didn't think Gerard Butler's Phantom had any charisma or discernible charm, or even a passable singing voice. His Scots burr kept breaking through both in dialogue and song. Emmy Rossum seemed laughably, impossibly young to have been Patrick Wilson's contemporary, supposedly a school chum. Not to fault her performance, though--I thought she was quite good. I haven't viewed it lately, but I thought it had gaps of logic; i.e., holes in the plot as filmed.

While I was disappointed on the whole, I wanted a permanent keepsake of the show, so I bought the DVD. Did you ever listen to the commentary? In one segment, Andrew Lloyd Webber describes only two people as such stage stalwarts that they are "theater animals": "Michael Crawford and Hugh Jackman." Love it! By the way, it seems that by the time he spoke those words, Webber and Crawford had made up after their famous feud.

Ellen

Darla,
Don't ask me, I feel the same as you about the film! (sorry Ellen!)

Nancy

I must agree, Darla. I loved the movie and have the DVD. I watch it quite often and really enjoy it.

JoanB

quote:

Originally posted by mamaleh:
I didn't think Gerard Butler's Phantom had any charisma or discernible charm, or even a passable singing voice. His Scots burr kept breaking through both in dialogue and song. Emmy Rossum seemed laughably, impossibly young to have been Patrick Wilson's contemporary, supposedly a school chum. Not to fault her performance, though--I thought she was quite good. I haven't viewed it lately, but I thought it had gaps of logic; i.e., holes in the plot as filmed.

While I was disappointed on the whole, I wanted a permanent keepsake of the show, so I bought the DVD. Did you ever listen to the commentary? In one segment, Andrew Lloyd Webber describes only two people as such stage stalwarts that they are "theater animals": "Michael Crawford and Hugh Jackman." Love it! By the way, it seems that by the time he spoke those words, Webber and Crawford had made up after their famous feud.

Ellen

my 2 favorites of course!!

I saw POTO 5 times, once in Seattle and 4 times at 2 different theaters in Vancouver. One of the Phantom's voice tore my heart out. Early on, I would have given anything to have a movie version of the stage show because I loved it that much. But I seriously disliked the movie, finding the characters almost laughable - no offense to those who liked it. I thought it plodded along, didn't hold my attention and left me with no memorable visuals. I even preferred the technicolor version of the stage version of the Masquarade scene, and this coming from someone who has a preference for minimalism. Oh well, each to his own.

I agree that were TBFO to be made a movie, it would have to be done so incredibly well, and if in the next few years, no one but Hugh could play Peter. I do think there is enough of a story and memorable music to make a film.

I saw The Jersey Boys yesterday and really enjoyed it. But to this day I cannot see a stage play without feeling the pull of my heartstrings over the comparison to the full body experience of TBFO. I found it interesting how the song lyrics were woven into biography of the story, and a few times the orchestra downbeat made my heart lurch in memory of I Love To Hear The Music. I've never seen a play with such heart as we witnessed at the Imperial.

I saw the stage musical of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA several times, on Broadway and at the West End. It was such a romantic story with almost operatic singing, generally well-acted as well as well-cast. I also thought it was the most theatrical of any musical I have ever seen. Although it is not my favourite musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, I was certainly looking forward to seeing a film version of this musical.

The casting news was a tad disappointing when it was announced because it did seem that they were constrained by their budget ( the buzz was it was only ALW who financed it mostly), but I still looked forward to seeing it on screen.

I thought the movie was alright, but somewhat disappointing. There were some cinematic beauties ( the time-change surrounding the Opera House -- I have been to this building and the surroundings so it was especially memorable for me), but what struck me was that it did seem to be miscast

I've always had this vision of the Phantom ( from the stage musical) of a romantic but very obssessed figure who had a mesmerizing effect on Christine ( else, why would she be drawn to him?) or even the opera house owners and Mme Giry ( or were they just frightened of him?). A truly commanding figure in the story...and brought to the stage by a mesmerizing performance by Michael Crawford. When you hear him sing Music of the Night, it almost makes the hair on your skin rise.

At the end, while you knew that he was evil, somehow there is some sympathy for his pitiful figure!

Unfortunately, Gerard Butler, played the role more as an angry-not-so-young man! He was bitter and angry and vindictive. Nothing very mesmerizing with his character. Quite a letdown from my personal notion of the Phantom

Emmy Rossum - she could sing, but it was disappinting that she always looked ethereal in almost every scene and seemed to have only one facial expression. Sorry, but she didn't impress at all with her acting. I was expecting a Christine who was a bit more feisty or daring ( else, she wouldn't be drawn to meeting a character like the Phantom), but Emmy looked more like a dainty Disney princess.

Patrick Wilson - handsome, can sing, but did not impress on screen. I wonder why - most stage actors possess charisma that translates well on the screen, but sadly it didn't do it for me for Patrick in this role. I am glad though that it seemed to have opened doors for him for some good roles in the cinema.

No offense meant - I am just sharing my personal impressions.

I do have the DVD


Jo

I only saw the movie once and have no interest in owning the DVD. I've seen the stage production (on Broadway as well as on tour) six or seven times and was enthralled by it every time. My main issue with the movie was the cast. I echo Jo's sentiments about Butler and Rossum. I just didn't see why she was drawn to him. And I thought Patrick Wilson was laughable as Raoul. While I agree he has a good singing voice, and he's okay looking, IMO he hasn't an ounce of charisma (and I saw him on stage in "Oklahoma!" - his portrayal of Curly paled in comparison to Hugh's Curly). To me, he's about as exciting as watching paint dry.

This is a movie version I would prefer to forget in favor of savouring my memories of the stage production.

Well I agree and I have said many times before I think it would be impossible to make a good TBFO movie--it has to have an audience--now I never saw the movie phantom because I wouldnt see it cause they turned down Michael Crawford as the Phantom--no one could be better!!

Thank you all for your insightful commentary. Interestingly, I agree with most of your comments but still liked the movie(although I thought Rossum and Butler were good - and the attraction was a father-figure attraction, which i found believable for an orphaned girl).

I guess I have fairly low standards when it comes to period pieces and music!

Here's ANOTHER MOVIE question FOR ALL OF YOU:

I saw Knocked Up on DVD because of all the critical acclaim for this comedy. ARE THE CRTICS ALL 16 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL BOYS?

I HATED this stupid, gross movie. However, I would love to hear from any of you that DID like the movie - or have any reason as to why the critics liked it. I love hearing all of your comments - THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING in the discussion.
Darla